Robert
Schweitzer’s overall thesis is opposed to trying to understand Jesus from the 19th century scholarly perspective.
Steefen
He provides explanations and reasons, some of which are found in Chapter 18.
Robert
Schweitzer attempted to understand the Jesus of history as a Jewish apocalyptic foreigner of the 1st-century
Steefen
A Jewish foreigner, where in the book or another one of his works does Schweitzer call Jesus a Jewish foreigner (and not just a Jewish man in a Gentile country)? A Jewish foreigner relative to 19th century Germany?
The part of the Biblical Jesus that is not purely historical has been artificially transplanted into history.
This thread is about the details in chapter 18 of the book: the details of the position of the subject at the close of the 19th century.
This thread is also about how those details have been addressed since.
Then the part of Julius Caesar that is not historical has ditto.
Basically all historians acknowledge that the gospels contain non-historical material, and did so before Schweitzer ever thought of writing that book. Skepticism about elements in the gospels among Christians can be traced back at least as far as Origen.
What’s your point?
I still say you have no idea.
I know you’re not, but I’m far from certain about Steefen. Granted, his prose style is so convoluted, I could be failing to grasp his point. He’s got one, right?
Markan originality, in the sense of Mark having written his gospel without reference to earlier sources, is not something I believe in myself. I doubt any of the gospel authors did that, though from a standpoint of pure originality, John should probably be ranked highest. When his vision of Jesus conflicted with a given source, he’d go with his vision. The result is a work of great integrity and little veracity.
My point is that you can’t say, as Steefen just did, that the mythic elements in the gospels have been accepted as history when basically no historians accept them as factual. Granted, because famous people become the subject of gifted storytellers, those who don’t study history (which is most of us) often do accept as fact things that are dubious or flat-out wrong. Most people have a completely false idea of what happened at Thermopylae, and it’s almost pointless trying to tell them otherwise, because the heroic narrative created so long ago, and added to over the centuries, has too much persuasive power (and the Persians didn’t produce a counterpoint). No religious agenda there, and what does it matter? People believe what they want to believe.
The part of the Biblical Jesus that is not purely historical has been artificially transplanted into history.
That’s what he typed, a bit further back on the thread. Possible I mistook his meaning. It’s hard to tell with him.
I have nothing against amateurs in this field–I am one myself. If I ever saw someone quoting me as an authority, I think I’d die of embarrassment.
Robert
To understand what Schweitzer means by skepticism, you have to understand that he is talking primarily about Bruno Bauer, who exaggerated Markan priority and creativity to such an extent that he doubted the historical existence of Jesus, and William Wrede, who adopted and adapted the ideas of Bauer, such that an historical Jesus existed and his existence was partly confirmed by pre-Markan tradition, but this Jesus did not consider himself to be the Christ.
Steefen
Parts of the Biblical Jesus are not historical.
What are the most significant details of Bauer’s exaggeration or what is the salient exaggeration?
You say Wrede concluded Jesus was historical.
You say Wrede concluded that Jesus did not consider himself “Christ”.
Matthew 16: 16 – “You are the Christ” does not appear in Mark. Peter’s confession does not appear in Mark.
Robert
Schweitzer with his own approach held that Jesus was driven by his awareness of his own role as the apocalyptic Christ.
Steefen
Schweitzer believed Jesus had a qualified anointer? Who was that person?
The Messiah did not need to be anointed but a Christ, apocalyptic or not, needed to be anointed.
Part of the way we get to “Christ” is through Peter’s confession in Matthew. Mark misses that part of the Oral Tradition; or, it was not part of the Oral Tradition because it was an invention by Matthew.
Was Schweitzer right or wrong: 1) Peter’s Confession is historical but Mark did not write it, Matthew wrote it down, 2) Peter’s Confession is not historical but Luke called Jesus Christ for a different reason–Luke 2:11 …born to you. He is Christ the Lord!, or 3) Peter’s Confession is not historical because Matthew invented Peter’s confession?
I greatly admire Schweitzer’s contributions, and maybe this reads better in German (if anything ever has), but I can’t say I’m a huge fan of his prose.
The one thing you have to say about him is that he admires Jesus more than most nominal Christians ever did. Which tracks with his life very well.
Robert said
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Mark does indeed include Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ:
Mk 8,29 He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.”
Mt 16,15-16 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Robert, thank you.
Steefen
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)